For or Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Speedy Boarder
- Start date
You bet your wife
New member
Recent? Get serious!
Coersion and abuse have nothing to do with this discussion. Coersion and abuse occur in straight marriages, gay unions, frienRABhips...whatever.
So is sodomy.
I believe the restraints are on age, kinship and desease. I see no reason the state would hesitate to show why the license is denied.
That does not make them right.
Not irrelevant. The state could easily say "You don't qualify to be married because you are both of the same sex and a marriage to be recognised in this state must be between a male and a female." It's as simple as that.
I don't know that it changes your point, but it does point to the fact that they could be wrong in their previous decision.
Appointed.
Liberals wear many coats, including Republican and Democrat. There are liberals infesting ALL parties. It's just that some parties are overflowing with them, some have but a few.
The definition hasn't changed yet.
Do you understand that the definition of a word depenRAB on whether it is accepted by those using it? Gangs and street punks have their own lingo and understand each other because they accept the definitions of the worRAB they use. Different dialects of the same language contain different worRAB and inflections that are understrood by those using them. I would bet my last dollar that the vast majority of people in the world today, regardless of race, culture or language, would infer from the statement, "I am a married man.", that I have a female wife.
Apparently, you misread the statement wherein I mentioned biological parents.
LMAO!
Coersion and abuse have nothing to do with this discussion. Coersion and abuse occur in straight marriages, gay unions, frienRABhips...whatever.
So is sodomy.
I believe the restraints are on age, kinship and desease. I see no reason the state would hesitate to show why the license is denied.
That does not make them right.
Not irrelevant. The state could easily say "You don't qualify to be married because you are both of the same sex and a marriage to be recognised in this state must be between a male and a female." It's as simple as that.
I don't know that it changes your point, but it does point to the fact that they could be wrong in their previous decision.
Appointed.
Liberals wear many coats, including Republican and Democrat. There are liberals infesting ALL parties. It's just that some parties are overflowing with them, some have but a few.
The definition hasn't changed yet.
Do you understand that the definition of a word depenRAB on whether it is accepted by those using it? Gangs and street punks have their own lingo and understand each other because they accept the definitions of the worRAB they use. Different dialects of the same language contain different worRAB and inflections that are understrood by those using them. I would bet my last dollar that the vast majority of people in the world today, regardless of race, culture or language, would infer from the statement, "I am a married man.", that I have a female wife.
Apparently, you misread the statement wherein I mentioned biological parents.
LMAO!
Boy there is a shocker........Not to get off topic then you believe that the Fla Supreme Court composed of all democrats was right in citing that the 59 counties in Florida could use any standard they chose fit to dicipher a vote.....
If that does not fall under equal protection nothing does.........
If that does not fall under equal protection nothing does.........
Angry Grandma 2.0
New member
And at no time did he partake of the sacraments. The Founding Fathers were all Deists. Live with it !
2Pacalypse
New member
Jitobear/Justine, have you ever heard of and abortion that you did not think was justified?
*this war is ours*
New member
OK since you won't take the time to read the thread even though your here all night here you go........
It is illegal for 2 men or 2 women to marry..............if that were legal then under the same equal protection clause of the 14th amendment I want to marry 2 or 3 women, or my sister, or my mother.......
If you make that exception for gays then you have to make it for me........
Now keep track of that answer................write it down someplace so in another 50 posts you don't come back and ask the same question........
Thanks............
It is illegal for 2 men or 2 women to marry..............if that were legal then under the same equal protection clause of the 14th amendment I want to marry 2 or 3 women, or my sister, or my mother.......
If you make that exception for gays then you have to make it for me........
Now keep track of that answer................write it down someplace so in another 50 posts you don't come back and ask the same question........
Thanks............
sweetrelease82
New member
I did not say all liberals have no jobs...........I said most............
I love the debate.............You should join whistlestopper.it is a forum where if you have a differnece of opinion that is not liberal you are banned....You would love it there........Everyone agrees on everything...........
I love the debate.............You should join whistlestopper.it is a forum where if you have a differnece of opinion that is not liberal you are banned....You would love it there........Everyone agrees on everything...........
C
Callum J
Guest
Perhaps you could post a link to these transcripts so that we can verify your claim?
JAEloveshim
New member
No.
Gay marriage are right, because they involve love and support. There is no downside.
It's not as simple as that. If it were, you would have no problem discriminating.
Perhaps we need to ask, "are you now, or have you ever been a liberal?"
Actually, the Oxford Dictionary of Canadian English, defines marriage as "two persons", there is no mention of a man and a woman, male or female. I hope this is the future of American dictionaries.
The church can't perform legal marriages without the government's involvement.
So, how do you believe gay marriage are right or wrong?
So you are okay with people having marriages just for appearances sake and just for benefits, without love?
Gay marriage are right, because they involve love and support. There is no downside.
It's not as simple as that. If it were, you would have no problem discriminating.
Perhaps we need to ask, "are you now, or have you ever been a liberal?"
Actually, the Oxford Dictionary of Canadian English, defines marriage as "two persons", there is no mention of a man and a woman, male or female. I hope this is the future of American dictionaries.
The church can't perform legal marriages without the government's involvement.
So, how do you believe gay marriage are right or wrong?
So you are okay with people having marriages just for appearances sake and just for benefits, without love?
curiouswoman
New member
Most of those churches it is just a small minority of the church and the Episcopal , Lutheran and Methodis churchs are moving break from those small clans......
delta_beta
New member
Everyone in society, including gay people, use the courts. Gay Americans are a part of America. Just because they are getting stung, or may get stung, doesn't make that stinging right.
The issue, to my mind, is considerably complex - yet the principle factor is not homosexuality, nor even lifestyle, it is legal entitlements.
We have an existing sytem of government that has removed itself from protecting the individuals under it and their right to be themselves (and be left alone), to a system wherin the Government determines what is "right and good" for the citizens and enforces compliance.
Should Gay Marriage be allowed? The only reason this is a question is due to the legal implications whereby individuals who are morally against the "lifestyle" are legal bound to financially support it. If the Governement had not gotten its nose under the tent with Social Programs (and particularily the resultant laws impelling compliance) to begin with there would be no question. Individual Churches would be allowed to determine whether a union was 'religiously' accepted, anyone could be 'legally' married, and the homosexual lifestyle would NOT impact anyone else - it could THEN truly be 'your' choice but not 'mine'
Since it is, implicitly, this financial entitlement that those vying in favor homosexual unions are seeking, lets make the question more accurate: Should an individual be compelled to support, in any manner, another individual's life choices?
When we look at the question with truly open eyes we realize it is not whether homosexual unions are right or wrong, but rather whether I am forced to support such a union against my will.
As there are so many other entitlements behind a legal reconition of Marriage, the question of homosexual marriage DOES affect all of us on grounRAB other than religious, thus the Question must be viewed in THAT light (legal) rather than with a subjective (religious) bias.
What are some of the legal entitlements a legally married couple gain:
MSN Money (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P48908.asp)
"The people who got a tax break by marrying were those with disparate incomes. The wider the gap between the paychecks of the husband and wife, the bigger the bonus."
Workplace health and pension benefits coverage.
Social Security retirement and survivor benefits
Lower insurance rates.
Automatic inheritance rights
Preferential estate tax treatment
Let us examine the 'healthiness' of the homosexual union (as that would impact the greatest financial burden - increased health insurance premiums):
Following excerpts from: The American College of Pediatricians (http://www.acpeRAB.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50)
NOTE: this article has to do with homosexual parenting, with an emphasis on the scientific studies revolving around the homosexual lifestyle. Bibliological references listed at the site.
"Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples"
"Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years"
"Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships"
"Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables"
"The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science. January 22, 2004"
SO, from a sound financial reason homosexual unions would entitle partners to Social Security and Healthcare benefits. As these are systems whereby participants "equally" (?) share the burden of assistance/services, individuals other than the immediate homosexual couple are financially impacted by the un-healthiness of the homosexual lifestyle. Thus on a financial basis, LEGAL recognition of homosexual unions should be denied as they would compell an unfair burden on the rest of society.
Finally, given the current legal compulsions inferred by marriage on the rest of society, my vote would have to be against the legal recognition of homosexual unions. If we were to do away with those compulsory supports, for BOTH hetero- and homo- sexual unions, my vote would very likely change because - even if I don't like it - at least I am not supporting it.
We have an existing sytem of government that has removed itself from protecting the individuals under it and their right to be themselves (and be left alone), to a system wherin the Government determines what is "right and good" for the citizens and enforces compliance.
Should Gay Marriage be allowed? The only reason this is a question is due to the legal implications whereby individuals who are morally against the "lifestyle" are legal bound to financially support it. If the Governement had not gotten its nose under the tent with Social Programs (and particularily the resultant laws impelling compliance) to begin with there would be no question. Individual Churches would be allowed to determine whether a union was 'religiously' accepted, anyone could be 'legally' married, and the homosexual lifestyle would NOT impact anyone else - it could THEN truly be 'your' choice but not 'mine'
Since it is, implicitly, this financial entitlement that those vying in favor homosexual unions are seeking, lets make the question more accurate: Should an individual be compelled to support, in any manner, another individual's life choices?
When we look at the question with truly open eyes we realize it is not whether homosexual unions are right or wrong, but rather whether I am forced to support such a union against my will.
As there are so many other entitlements behind a legal reconition of Marriage, the question of homosexual marriage DOES affect all of us on grounRAB other than religious, thus the Question must be viewed in THAT light (legal) rather than with a subjective (religious) bias.
What are some of the legal entitlements a legally married couple gain:
MSN Money (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P48908.asp)
"The people who got a tax break by marrying were those with disparate incomes. The wider the gap between the paychecks of the husband and wife, the bigger the bonus."
Workplace health and pension benefits coverage.
Social Security retirement and survivor benefits
Lower insurance rates.
Automatic inheritance rights
Preferential estate tax treatment
Let us examine the 'healthiness' of the homosexual union (as that would impact the greatest financial burden - increased health insurance premiums):
Following excerpts from: The American College of Pediatricians (http://www.acpeRAB.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50)
NOTE: this article has to do with homosexual parenting, with an emphasis on the scientific studies revolving around the homosexual lifestyle. Bibliological references listed at the site.
"Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples"
"Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years"
"Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships"
"Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables"
"The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science. January 22, 2004"
SO, from a sound financial reason homosexual unions would entitle partners to Social Security and Healthcare benefits. As these are systems whereby participants "equally" (?) share the burden of assistance/services, individuals other than the immediate homosexual couple are financially impacted by the un-healthiness of the homosexual lifestyle. Thus on a financial basis, LEGAL recognition of homosexual unions should be denied as they would compell an unfair burden on the rest of society.
Finally, given the current legal compulsions inferred by marriage on the rest of society, my vote would have to be against the legal recognition of homosexual unions. If we were to do away with those compulsory supports, for BOTH hetero- and homo- sexual unions, my vote would very likely change because - even if I don't like it - at least I am not supporting it.
Christian Jankulov
New member
Are you saying the Cardinal supports Gay Marriage and abortion? Can you please provide a link to that.......Thanks.........
Popes are against all wars but they do acknowlege that some wars are just....
As far as I go I am human, imperfect......
Since you guys/girls brought him up was JP2 for gay marriage and abortion?
Popes are against all wars but they do acknowlege that some wars are just....
As far as I go I am human, imperfect......
Since you guys/girls brought him up was JP2 for gay marriage and abortion?
Growing Times..
New member
Wouldn't it be great if all the gay activists for gay marriage moved to Canada.......